Korelsky, V. F. Fish, fishermen and fish industry in Russia / V. F. Korelsky. - Bremen : Krebs, [1993?]-.

A negative aspect of the existence of joint-stock companies is that it makes the purpose of denationalization doubtful. This cannot turn all the workers into owners since one cannot be an owner of several enterprises in different towns at the same time. The shareholder in the mechanism of denationalization must take account of specific functions, the main functions being the transfer of means, their use with the aim of combining the potentials, the accumulation of the registered fund (here, we mean not only the attraction of money but also the redistribution of material resources that are in deficit). It is actually connected with a voluntary transfer of the means by the owners for their merge in the place and at the time when and where they are deficient to realize a large-scale project. Historically, it was just the way the joint-stock companies appeared. As a result, especially wide-spread were the corporations in whose framework the status of owners remained the same, i.e., the shareholders can withdraw them or get dividends. For all its effectiveness, the joint-stock form of property is not something special. If it is not preceded by purposeful actions concerning the alteration of the status of property, then it does not yet mean in itself the transformation of the form of property. The indication of transformation of the state property is its personification. But to obviate any negative social and political consequences, a mechanism is needed for determining the share of every working man, irrespective of whether he is occupied in the productive or nonproductive sphere, in the amount of the annual national income or of the personal accumulation fund, in proportion to the labor input of everyone irrespective of his place of work. Different variants of distribution of the cost equivalent of the state property are suggested, namely, as bonds, as shares of holding companies, as people’s bonds. Their common drawback is that they do not protect the state property from noneamed profits and from the distribution according to the share invested, which may be not earned either. The cost equivalent of the state property in the form of securities can be bought and concentrated in the hands of one person. This can only be obviated by a system of personal accounts of all workers, which reflects the labor inputs of the people and allows the workmen to accumulate money. The development of every form of property in the fish industry entails some difficulties and restrictions. For example, it is difficult to form a collective enterprise since the members of the collective do not possess, as a rule, necessary money needed to buy out the property. When an enterprise is bought out by installments, the future profits of the enterprise, under the conditions of growing prices, become, to a large degree, a guarantee of the repayment of the debt and not of contributions to the budget. A collective or a group property sets up additional problems in the regulation of relations between the accumulation and consumption, limits the investments and the possibilities of the centralized macroregulation of the economy. Therefore, if we estimate the effect produced on the economy, we cannot a priori consider collective enterprises to be the only priority enterprises. The advantages of the collective property must be substantiated by practice. The international experience 6 6